Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jägerlein said:

After Erdogan purge in the Leo 2 units following the coup, I wouldn`t be suprised if they would borrow such ideas from the syrian ragtag...and it wouldn`t be suprising if they "uparmored" only the crew compartement.

Btw: Talking about german APS on turkish tanks right now...well the german public is right now not very amused by pictures of Leo2s fighting Kurds in the syrian border ( it seems like an MBT is obvious enough for the public contrary to G3s and MG3s being used against the Kurds since decades) region and the acting government is already in the midst of a small scale shitstorm for not ruling out outstanding armsdeals with turkey. Renk, MTU or Rheinmetall exports to Turkey are not very likely in the nearer future.

Edit: Quod erad demonstrandum in two ways:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/germany-says-it-has-frozen-tanks-upgrade-for-turkey-126318
(As far as I know the mentioned upgrade is more or less the Leo2 NG version which includes the ADS)

Do i see cage armor on Leo 2 just behind Leo 2 with that strange storage bin/jihadarmor thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Well yes, but how dangerous exactly is depending on what you look at. A Merkava 4 should have all-round protection against the basic PG-7V/PG-7M rounds fired by the the RPG-7, so in this case the APS adds additional danger to people (if the RPG-7 round hits the armor, there are a few fragments; if the RPG-7 round gets engaged by the APS, there are more fragments).

I think you misunderstood me. All APS, whether launcher based or not, ultimately strive to disarm the warhead. It would be no good if the warhead still detonated. If an RPG-7 hits, regardless of whether it penetrates anything or not, it will produce a great amount of fragments as well as a very strong blast that could cause hearing damage and concussion. If an APS disarms its warhead, the number of fragments itself will be far smaller, and they will be for the most part directed at a tight cone. A detonating RPG will cause fragments to fly in a chaotic manner.

What I am talking about is completely separate from the protected platform and its passive armor capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could also be an M60 or sabra mbt. Anyway, this shows why hull ammo storage is faulty and bustle stored ammo with armored doors and blow off panels a la M1 is the best solution for mbt. Unfortunately the Altay also comes with ammo stored in the hull.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=33&v=mLsGgUTsJgQ
 

sc6299Mmo0-JH0Dij7RzPnvQKxZ8MeKyOfOscpOZ

HbIb9xzRqSzfmmDXpPs5UO-iZV1orQLQukzn2RIp

xOTgCIK1Bb0txIIbOet3jsqzGpq8cyygX7cLnlB4


Konkurs/Fagot in to L2A4 turret front -no penetration

 

SV3eYC1sTo6ll-gd3_qAgMi1JgMBKCur0cdyM_ej

 

 

First in history filmed catastrophic kill after Konkurs kit in L2a4 hull ammo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=65&v=_dx7NZJXHoM

Total kill + heavy damage Sabra behind the Leo:

VxAeV-eqqWL0sZEwY25zF1MnXi7bqr9vi4L956hU

7Mhx8nFJXxORogZZQz7MMDgZkm0iQmCBMTxD6seh

hyLLdoXoP2Kla6CnmTJDrGRklHWjKE8518r0ey2k

+ heavy damage Sabra:
MJBs9S-mGU8XnEUKIxsltNjJkKUUjKRu8dkrXn2W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

 

+ heavy damage Sabra:
 

I'm not sure that's what most would qualify as heavy damage. It puts it out of service for a while. Probably can't replace that on the field. But it's not a very thorough or very expensive repair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, barbaria said:

Could also be an M60 or sabra mbt. Anyway, this shows why hull ammo storage is faulty and bustle stored ammo with armored doors and blow off panels a la M1 is the best solution for mbt. Unfortunately the Altay also comes with ammo stored in the hull.

 

 

Numerous studies show that by moving the ammunition from the turret to the hull greatly reduces the chance of a ammunition explosion. The turret takes the majority of the hits. Adding further to this, the front is the most armored part of the hull, so by placing it behind the frontal armor you provide the most efficient armor coverage.  

 

The only thing this proves is that blow out panels massively improves crew survival rate in case of a ammunition detonation.

 

There are only a few reason why you would ever want a bustle:
Best location of a ready rack for a manual loader.

Easy to isolate from the crew.

Easy placement for a autoloader in a oscillating turret.

Works as a counterweight to the frontal armor and main gun.

 

Some of the main disadvantages include:
Makes the turret heavier because the extra armor required, and in the M1's case a lot of extra armor. 

Requires the deck of the tank to be constructed in such a way that it does not block the turret from rotating 360 degrees.

Makes a big target for enemy troops flanking the vehicle, and with a bustle rack, makes a big weak spot, the Tiger II is a good example here.

Makes a weakspot for enemy charges and HE explosive rounds that can rip the turret off the turret ring or jam the turret ring.

 

 

It basically boils down to firepower vs protection for a conventional tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, barbaria said:

Could also be an M60 or sabra mbt. Anyway, this shows why hull ammo storage is faulty and bustle stored ammo with armored doors and blow off panels a la M1 is the best solution for mbt. Unfortunately the Altay also comes with ammo stored in the hull.

 

 

Best solution for an MBT with a human loader. The next generation of tanks will come with a robotized loader, and the ammunition will be separated from the crew. Much like the T-14 did. And you can still put the ammo below the turret ring in such a setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

Shame on me - M60 hit by ATGM

 

c60d50d3c4ac3.bmp

 

 

d52de9aec6e39.bmp

d52de9aec6e39.bmp

 

 

 

 

When M60 became a German cat? This should be in General AFV thread. Or in Syrian war thread (where i laready posted it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3.2.2018 at 3:07 PM, LoooSeR said:

@SH_MM

Is that a Leo-2? Kurds in Afrin ATGMed Turkish tank/AFV, can't see well enough to be sure what kind of AFV.

 

It is a Leopard 2, which IMO is facing to the right side of the frame. The ATGM seems to have impacted behind the heavy armor skirts, pretty much in the center of the tank. Most likely behind the fourth roadwheel, maybe a bit to the right or left side.

Maybe it looked like this:

kH5HAZd.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

It is a Leopard 2, which IMO is facing to the right side of the frame. The ATGM seems to have impacted behind the heavy armor skirts, pretty much in the center of the tank. Most likely behind the fourth roadwheel, maybe a bit to the right or left side.

Maybe it looked like this:

kH5HAZd.png

 

IMO the Leopard faces us the viewers with it's turret facing to the left of it's center. The ATGM hit in the area of the main gun ammo stowage and there seems to be no delay between the ATGM exploding and the ammo inside the tank exploding, whatsoever.

 

It still amazes me why virtually every (western) tank designers put half or more of the main gun ammo in the hull. There is not one modern day tank that won't suffer casualties from internal main gun ammo explosion expect for the M1 Abrams. And Armata, but then again it's design isn't cost-effective. 

 

5 soldiers lost their life because of a faulty design. That's 5 too much and especially sad for the one soldier standing in the vicinity of the tank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, barbaria said:

 

IMO the Leopard faces us the viewers with it's turret facing to the left of it's center. The ATGM hit in the area of the main gun ammo stowage and there seems to be no delay between the ATGM exploding and the ammo inside the tank exploding, whatsoever.

 

It still amazes me why virtually every (western) tank designers put half or more of the main gun ammo in the hull. There is not one modern day tank that won't suffer casualties from internal main gun ammo explosion expect for the M1 Abrams. And Armata, but then again it's design isn't cost-effective. 

 

5 soldiers lost their life because of a faulty design. That's 5 too much and especially sad for the one soldier standing in the vicinity of the tank. 

What's not "cost effective" about the Armata's design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several reasons commonly cited for this choice:

 

1. Turrets are the part of the tank anatomy most frequently targeted (assuming your FCS or guidance system is precise enough to guarantee a direct hit on the spot aimed at) by the enemy.

2. Placing half or most of your ammo in the hull lightens your turret (better traverse speed and whatnot), frees up space for more freedom of movement for the crew and provides potential growth room for turret armor.

3. It plays well with hull-down tactics, as it means most of the ammo will be out of sight and reach in these conditions.

 

Then again, the Leopard 2's turret allocates half of its turret bustle to hydraulics and a computer, so they have no choice but to stuff the rest in the hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

There are several reasons commonly cited for this choice:

 

1. Turrets are the part of the tank anatomy most frequently targeted (assuming your FCS or guidance system is precise enough to guarantee a direct hit on the spot aimed at) by the enemy.

2. Placing half or most of your ammo in the hull lightens your turret (better traverse speed and whatnot), frees up space for more freedom of movement for the crew and provides potential growth room for turret armor.

3. It plays well with hull-down tactics, as it means most of the ammo will be out of sight and reach in these conditions.

 

Then again, the Leopard 2's turret allocates half of its turret bustle to hydraulics and a computer, so they have no choice but to stuff the rest in the hull.

Also, a turret is A LOT cheaper than replacing the crew. Crews are crazy expensive, especially in well developed countries where good wages and work conditions is demanded. 
Crews also wins wars, conserving experience is key. Until we can completely automate AFVs, crew experience will still have an huge impact on the battlefield.

 

It also conserves precious manpower, and reduces casualties, which the public tend to frown on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

What's not "cost effective" about the Armata's design?

I should have said 'not cost effective in replacing/repairing the Armata'

If a warhead penetrates the ammo in the autoloader, it will cause such a huge explosion that the turret will be popped of just like any other tank. The turret contains lots of expensive and sensitive electronics, optics and the main gun itself. Such an explosion would probably wreck any electronic or mechanical connection between the crew module and engine which makes repairs difficult and expensive, if not impossible. 

 

The most probable outcome of an internal ammo explosion of the Armata will be a total write off of such a tank, only in this case the crew is more likely to survive than lets say a T-90. An M1 Abrams won't suffer an internal ammo explosion and would thus be less expensive and difficult to repair and put in combat after a/couple hits.

 

Of course the Armata will be a tough nut to crack with it's advanced APS and  thick side hull armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

There are several reasons commonly cited for this choice:

 

1. Turrets are the part of the tank anatomy most frequently targeted (assuming your FCS or guidance system is precise enough to guarantee a direct hit on the spot aimed at) by the enemy.

2. Placing half or most of your ammo in the hull lightens your turret (better traverse speed and whatnot), frees up space for more freedom of movement for the crew and provides potential growth room for turret armor.

3. It plays well with hull-down tactics, as it means most of the ammo will be out of sight and reach in these conditions.

 

Then again, the Leopard 2's turret allocates half of its turret bustle to hydraulics and a computer, so they have no choice but to stuff the rest in the hull.

 I would rather sit in an Abrams being a couple tonnes heavier and a top speed of a few km/h slower, than in a leopard 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

You gotta find a Abrams variant a couple of tonnes heavier than a Leopard 2 first... current top-models of the Leopard 2 are heavier.

Leopard 2A1 ---- 55,15 tons

Leopard 2A4 ---- 56,5 tons

Leopard 2A5 ---- 59,7 tons

Leopard 2A6 ---- 60,1 tons

Leopard 2A6M ---- 62,3 tons

Strv 122 ---- 62,5 tons

Leopard 2E ---- 63 tons

Leopard 2A7+ ---- 67,5 tons

 

M1 ----    54,5 tons

M1A1 ----    58 tons

M1A1 HA ----  61,3 tons

M1A2  -----   62 tons

M1A2 SEP ---- 63,1 tons (up to 65 tons)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×